I’m working my way through Daniel and in Spanish we have this guy called Grau. He’s a Spaniard who wrote on various things, many things actually, not very excitingly, but mostly decently. He writes on eschatology and sets everybody straight who’s reformed and amillennial. If you ask them what to believe, most people who aren’t dispensationalists tell you to read Grau. So he has a commentary on Daniel.
I’m in chapter nine, which contains at the end what some have called one of the most difficult passages to interpret in the Bible (I’m going with the Messianic/Young interpretation, case you’re interested). What Grau does in this chapter is briefly summarize the prayer and dig into the controversy at the end of the chapter with lengthy rebuttals of the Schofield notes (always pick a large, convenient target).
Which is kind of sad. Not disappointing, because one shouldn’t as a regular procedure use commentaries to figure out passages. I can figure out the prayer without a commentary. And not sad because he doesn’t find an abler opponent—that is pathetic. But it is sad because the prayer is rather a trove of theology, especially when you consider what we know of the life of the man who prays. Not a lot of reflection on that portion seems to have taken place.